SAJI THOMAS Vs. SHEEBA REJI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the third respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, challenging Ext.P2 order of the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam dated 9.3.2007 and Ext.P6 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, dated 4.12.2007. The brief facts of the case are the following:

(2.) THE first respondent herein was operating stage carriages on various routes, some of which, overlapped the route of the appellant. So, he applied for certified copy of Ext.P2 and challenged the same by filing Ext.P3 revision before the S.T.A.T. He also moved an application for condoning the delay of 40 days in filing the revision. The Tribunal, by Ext.P6 order dismissed the revision. It was held that there was no justification for condoning the delay. It was also held that the first respondent has no locus standi to challenge Ext.P2 order, in view of the decision of the Full Bench in Binu Chacko v. R.T.A., Pathanamthitta : 2006 (2) KLT 172. The first respondent, being aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P6 orders approached this Court by filing the writ petition, impugning those orders. According to him, since the current records were not produced within the time limit prescribed under Rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the decision of the R.T.A. to grant the permit ceased to exist. Therefore, by granting extension of time, life cannot be breathed into a dead grant. Though he cannot challenge the grant of permit in favour of the appellant, he has locus standi to challenge the grant of extension of time allowed, contrary to law, it was submitted. Though the Writ Petition was resisted pointing out the decision in Binu Chacko's case (supra), it was allowed by the learned Single Judge upholding the contentions of the petitioner/first respondent. Exts.P2 and P6 orders were quashed and the matter was remitted to the R.T.A. Kottayam for a fresh consideration of the application of the appellant for extension of time, in accordance with law. The appellant was permitted to operate on the route till the R.T.A. took a decision as directed. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this writ appeal is preferred by the appellant.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that none of the legal rights or legally protected interest of the first respondent is affected by Ext.P2 order. Therefore, he has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition in view of the Full Bench decision in Binu Chacko's case (supra). Special reference was made to paragraphs 25 and 27 of the said decision. The learned Counsel for the first respondent on the other hand submitted that the Full Bench in Binu Chacko's case (supra) has stated that the locus standi of a rival operator is not restricted to challenge against time schedule only. The possibility of maintaining a revision by a rival operator on certain other grounds also cannot be ruled out. Learned Counsel made special reference to paragraph 28 of the aforementioned decision.